|
On July 05 2013 23:26 Fig wrote:
Mules are actually a very good topic to bring up. Here at least haha. A while ago I couldn't stand them, since they make Terran so resilient to economic damage. But I realized they allow for much more interesting games because they give a Terran great comeback chances. Some recent comebacks by Terrans where they go down to single digit SCVs and then crawl back into the game with some very focused micro and eventually pull off a win. That kind of scrappy game is only possible because of mules.
I just wish the other races had similar comeback potential. (Mainly protoss, since zerg does have larva inject to get back drones quickly) It's so rare for a toss to make a comeback in a game where they are at a disadvantage. For example, getting off some good storms vs Terran can accomplish this. But, and maybe I'm somewhat biased, I can count the number of times I've seen a Protoss make one of these scrappy comebacks on just my hands. And I don't mean being at a lower supply as toss being a definite disadvantage, since their units cost so much more per supply, it is expected to be down in supply most midgames.
You could argue that additions like the mothership core have given protoss great initial defense so that this comeback potential is not as necessary for protoss. But from watching, I've found that the most interesting games are not when harass fails and defenses hold, but when there is back and forth and comebacks are made. Which could be why many consider the toss matchups not as fun to watch: either defend and win, or succumb to harass and continue declining from there.
Do you know how many games I've seen a Terran lose to a Protoss simply because of cronoboosted upgrades? The advantages of mules/crono shows itself in different ways.
|
On July 05 2013 19:14 NarutO wrote:
Means you cannot balance the game around only Flash/INnoVation/SoulKey...
Actually why not? Naming just three players might be hyperbole, but why can't we (read Kim/Blizzard) balance around the 10 best players of every race.
As an "esports consumer" I am much more interested and I have much more to "gain" from watching close matches in the final rounds of big tournaments, than from the knowledge that NA or EU grandmaster rank 147 and 154 slug it out in the manner most satisfying to them.
If people complain, tell them to improve. And the skill gap at the very top is maybe bigger than many people concede. Luckily we had four mirror matches in the 2013 WCS Season 1 quartefinals. Three of them - with the exception of Soulkey-RorO - were lopsided as hell.
If people still complain, tell them to switch race and put their money where their mouth is. If they think race X is so much better, play it and start racking up big wins.
This is not an excuse for races to have obviously different skill ceilings. But if in doubt, Blizzard should balance by looking at the best, and balance by looking at statistics they produce.
|
On July 05 2013 22:49 Schroedinger wrote:
Imho it is delusional to expect mule nerf.
Now I won´t argue if mules are op.
But do you really think Blizzard would EVER consider to nerf mules ?
Even if mules would be op, there won´t be any "huge" changes like a mule nerf before Legacy of the Void.
I don't think many understands the power of having a lot of ccs. As soon terran start sacking scvs because they have mules i don't think anything can beat it. And if you scout that terrans playing macro you have to allin, terran doesn't even care what you do, he only build some bunkers if you allin. Thats how the matchup is right now, if the allin gives a better win ratio then 50% terran will stop making 3ccs and be less greedy if its 50% they will continue doing it and the matchup is fucked until something changes.
|
On July 06 2013 00:15 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:26 Fig wrote:
Mules are actually a very good topic to bring up. Here at least haha. A while ago I couldn't stand them, since they make Terran so resilient to economic damage. But I realized they allow for much more interesting games because they give a Terran great comeback chances. Some recent comebacks by Terrans where they go down to single digit SCVs and then crawl back into the game with some very focused micro and eventually pull off a win. That kind of scrappy game is only possible because of mules.
I just wish the other races had similar comeback potential. (Mainly protoss, since zerg does have larva inject to get back drones quickly) It's so rare for a toss to make a comeback in a game where they are at a disadvantage. For example, getting off some good storms vs Terran can accomplish this. But, and maybe I'm somewhat biased, I can count the number of times I've seen a Protoss make one of these scrappy comebacks on just my hands. And I don't mean being at a lower supply as toss being a definite disadvantage, since their units cost so much more per supply, it is expected to be down in supply most midgames.
You could argue that additions like the mothership core have given protoss great initial defense so that this comeback potential is not as necessary for protoss. But from watching, I've found that the most interesting games are not when harass fails and defenses hold, but when there is back and forth and comebacks are made. Which could be why many consider the toss matchups not as fun to watch: either defend and win, or succumb to harass and continue declining from there. I actually had a very similar thought process. I just want to point out 2 details, which I still believe a perfectly designed mule should not have: -) mass mules in late-/endgame scenarios make harassment against Terrans inefficient -) mules can only mine minerals, which makes Terran mineralheavy units overly necessary in design and which is one of the reasons why gasheavy styles are very rare. I think it's not an accident that the race with the mules got a 1:0 and a 3:1 mineral/gas ratio unit, while the other races got 2:1, 1:2, 1:1, 3:2 and 1:1 ratio units in HotS. It makes sense in terms of inherent setup viability.
I doubt having mules is the reason Terran was given by far the most units with high mineral/low gas costs. But the fact that mules exist make terrans more likely to use those units primarily. I still think one of the silliest things is to watch terrans play and always have 2k gas sitting in the bank by mid/lategame. It seems to be a combination of having mules, having mineral units that are super cost efficient, and having gas units that are not as all-around strong as those mineral units.
|
I think everybody's looking at this "balancing for different levels of play" wrong. Instead of saying that we should balance starcraft 2 for all levels of play, we should say that we should balance SC2 so that the better player always wins. I don't exactly agree for balancing the game at lower levels, but does it makes sense to anybody that you have to reach a certain level of play just to be competitive? And let's be honest here, the same posters that say the game shouldn't be balanced at lower levels of play probably don't believe that at the highest level the better players in SC2 wins most of the time.
That being said, many of the problems that people that want "balance at lower levels" have are just as prevalent in other sports as well. In baseball at the lower leagues I could just teach most of the batters to bunt most of the time and probably win most if not all of my baseball games. In tennis at the lower levels I could just lob the ball in the air and a lot of people can't deal with it. Does that mean that bunts and lobs are "overpowered" and should be removed from the game or changed? Of course not! The unfortunate reality is that most of the time you just have to get better to a point where all that cheap crap doesn't work on you anymore. The only comfort that you can really take from stuff like that people that abuse dumb stuff like that severely limit their potential to improve and get better. That last thing you should do is blame the game and say it's not "balanced" for people like you on the lower level.
In conclusion, I understand the sentiment for why people want "balance at lower levels of play", but I disagree with it at the same time. Balance at lower levels of play can have far reaching effects that could make it so the "better players" at the highest levels can't consistently win as they should. If you're going to go that far, why not just create a separate system for those people? That's basically what they do with other sports. High school players aren't subject to the same rules as professional players in many sports, but I don't think that's really the way to go in SC2. However, I can say with confidence that there is still a long way to go before we can truly say that the better player (in the game) wins almost all of the time in SC2, even at the highest level.
|
On July 06 2013 01:21 Usernameffs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 22:49 Schroedinger wrote:
Imho it is delusional to expect mule nerf.
Now I won´t argue if mules are op.
But do you really think Blizzard would EVER consider to nerf mules ?
Even if mules would be op, there won´t be any "huge" changes like a mule nerf before Legacy of the Void. I don't think many understands the power of having a lot of ccs. As soon terran start sacking scvs because they have mules i don't think anything can beat it. And if you scout that terrans playing macro you have to allin, terran doesn't even care what you do, he only build some bunkers if you allin. Thats how the matchup is right now, if the allin gives a better win ratio then 50% terran will stop making 3ccs and be less greedy if its 50% they will continue doing it and the matchup is fucked until something changes.
you build orbitals and sack scvs lategame beause you need a larger army to beat some of the other race's late game compositions.
helps you beat zerg insta remax or 20 zealots being insta warped-in. at least thats how I see it in my own world 
it also helps mitigate the fact that P can chrono probes, while Z can just vomit and hold D down until there are no more larvas available during the earlier parts of the game.
MULES are like an economic crutch given to T to be able to keep up with the other race's fancy mechanics.
|
Yes it is, its the most important mechanic to. Probably more important then most terrans think, if you miss an inject your dead terrans don't go back and think if they missed a mule they lost, i never heard it like that. They think of mules like zerg think of creep spread but they shouldn't.
|
My opinion on balancing based on pros and on noobs:
Balancing the game based on the ease to play as a noob is not worthwhile. It's better to teach players how to play. Things like walling off, worker micro, simcity and splitting units are basic concepts that often noobs don't understand and make things like AoE or cheeses stronger.
Balancing around the Plat/Dia/Masters level is also not worthwhile because again, even in masters if you macro better than your opponent you will be able to basically A-move and win. Each race has things that are easy to use and harder to deal with, but also have things that are difficult to use but necessary. It's a good balance between making the game easy enough for a non-pro to play but also allowing a pro to massively outperform a semi pro or master/gm player.
Things like mines, banes, protoss aoe, emps, drops, etc are all not necessarily dependent on your own skill but your opponents skill. The skill demonstrated is more through multitasking and positioning rather than through sick micro. 1 hellbat drop may be somewhat difficult to deal with but give a pro hellbat drops and they drop in 3 different places while microing the drops.
A player in diamond can still do damage but won't be microing the drops or dropping in multiple locations WHILE macroing. All of the 'easy to use' builds and mechanics aren't easy to use in lower leagues because they heavily distract from macro. A platinum/diamond/masters player focusing on spreading his mines and dropping hellbats in multiple locations will fall heavily behind in macro to a point where it may not be worthwhile to focus on these things and rather focus on producing more. A pro using 'easy to use' builds and mechanics will shine because they will stay completely on point in macro.
Also, the answer to 'overpowered' mechanics/builds in lower leagues is simply build more stuff. You can just a move anyone who goes for harass or the like in lower leagues because their macro will suffer so badly.
Note: I don't like how little strategy plays a role in lower leagues but it does function to make pro level play extremely interesting and difficult and rewarding.
Note2: (balance related) I feel that there should be a practice league which plays on normal speed available to anyone bronze-gold.
Playing on normal makes responding to drops, doing builds, splitting and microing much. much easier and you can literally get to diamond/masters with next to no ability to split/spread if you can constantly product and defend.
Note3: More blizz released practice (such as marine/ghost/viking vs templar colossi chargelot or basic marine medivac mine vs ling bane muta) minigames on adjustable speeds allowing players to practice late game a-move engagements would also be beneficial to lower leagues than adjusting mechanics for them. Right now you need a friend and resume a specific replay and it's more difficult to do.
|
Mules are actually a very good topic to bring up. Here at least haha. A while ago I couldn't stand them, since they make Terran so resilient to economic damage.
It completely depends on the scenario. Complete destruction of mineral lines with continued pressure? Yeah mules are great. But a mineral line wiped out and not directly lacking minerals? Chronoboost, but especially larvas, are way more efficient at resaturating that base.
On July 06 2013 00:40 Aiobhill wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 19:14 NarutO wrote:
Means you cannot balance the game around only Flash/INnoVation/SoulKey... Actually why not? Naming just three players might be hyperbole, but why can't we (read Kim/Blizzard) balance around the 10 best players of every race. As an "esports consumer" I am much more interested and I have much more to "gain" from watching close matches in the final rounds of big tournaments, than from the knowledge that NA or EU grandmaster rank 147 and 154 slug it out in the manner most satisfying to them. If people complain, tell them to improve. And the skill gap at the very top is maybe bigger than many people concede. Luckily we had four mirror matches in the 2013 WCS Season 1 quartefinals. Three of them - with the exception of Soulkey-RorO - were lopsided as hell. If people still complain, tell them to switch race and put their money where their mouth is. If they think race X is so much better, play it and start racking up big wins. This is not an excuse for races to have obviously different skill ceilings. But if in doubt, Blizzard should balance by looking at the best, and balance by looking at statistics they produce.
As an SC2 player I am much more interested and I have much more to gain from playing close matches in a balanced environment, also for my skill level.
And why would you balance for the 10 best players of each race, and not just tell them to improve? It is a completely arbitrary line to balance on top 10, and tell everyone else to just get better. A properly designed AI would walk over anything a human can do (sure human can probably outplay the ai strategy wise, but micro/macro wise the difference is so gigantic a well designed AI should always win), so should we use them to balance SC2?
Not to mention with that logic we should boost terran when Innovation decides to switch to WoT, and nerf it when he returns again?
|
Yes the game should be balanced such that the player that plays better over the duration of the game should win. This means that games should not be based around a deathball or all in timing.
Ironically, this means that units such as hellbat drops actually helps this. At the top level of play, it should be about multitasking and constant aggression.
|
i think balancing around top 10 players of the world would be a good idea.
Suppose this, the game is perfectly balanced around top10 in the world. And terran is the hardest race to play (which is natural since they have the most-intensive units).
Therefore, top-100 would have only 5% of terrans. Now, think of pleasure to watch those 5% terrans do stuff'n'shit, rather than watching games where some 'unpopular' terrans exploiting easy strats and able to beat 'better' opponents. And actually, the game is slowly moving towards this. We have clear leader terrans, who are really good, and the likes of Puma, bitbybit are falling out. But I think we still have to reach the pinpoint.
|
On July 06 2013 01:21 Usernameffs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 22:49 Schroedinger wrote:
Imho it is delusional to expect mule nerf.
Now I won´t argue if mules are op.
But do you really think Blizzard would EVER consider to nerf mules ?
Even if mules would be op, there won´t be any "huge" changes like a mule nerf before Legacy of the Void. I don't think many understands the power of having a lot of ccs. As soon terran start sacking scvs because they have mules i don't think anything can beat it. And if you scout that terrans playing macro you have to allin, terran doesn't even care what you do, he only build some bunkers if you allin. Thats how the matchup is right now, if the allin gives a better win ratio then 50% terran will stop making 3ccs and be less greedy if its 50% they will continue doing it and the matchup is fucked until something changes.
Sorry but I never commented on "balance".
I just wanted to say ,not to expect any fundamental changes, like for example a mule nerf cause it won´t happen.
There will be nerfs, there will be buffs like always but don´t expect Blizzard to touch the core mechanics of the races before Legacy of the Void.
|
On July 06 2013 03:03 saddaromma wrote:
i think balancing around top 10 players of the world would be a good idea.
Suppose this, the game is perfectly balanced around top10 in the world. And terran is the hardest race to play (which is natural since they have the most-intensive units).
Therefore, top-100 would have only 5% of terrans. Now, think of pleasure to watch those 5% terrans do stuff'n'shit, rather than watching games where some 'unpopular' terrans exploiting easy strats and able to beat 'better' opponents. And actually, the game is slowly moving towards this. We have clear leader terrans, who are really good, and the likes of Puma, bitbybit are falling out. But I think we still have to reach the pinpoint.
top players changes all the time, it shifts.
Going to use broodwar as an example since it has a longer history, but it generally goes in a cycle of zerg, terran, then very briefly protoss dominance. If you balance around only the top 10 player, then you're not factoring in shift in meta and skill differences.
Personally I find most of HOTS balance atm, there really is no need for any changes except changing hellbats for TvT to allow greater variety of play. I would like there to be additional units suggestions but that'll have to wait for expansion
|
On July 06 2013 01:59 Usernameffs wrote:
Yes it is, its the most important mechanic to. Probably more important then most terrans think, if you miss an inject your dead terrans don't go back and think if they missed a mule they lost, i never heard it like that. They think of mules like zerg think of creep spread but they shouldn't.
To put this in perspective. If Terrans misses seconds on their rax factory or starport they think that hey have lost. While the Zerg can simply make more expansive units to counteract their lack of larva. What I mean by this is that every race has their problems, and if Blizzard did one thing extremely well, it is making sure that the macro machenics are comparable.
|
Definitely do not only balance the game at top level.
Game needs to be fairly balanced by the amount of skill needed to win a game and equally as fun.
Right now zvt is extremely frustrating to play in since zerg is either all in or stays defensive until one big good engage and counterattack win.
But tvz is extremely fun, you put on non stop aggression and has total tempo control of the game.
Stopping a drop is definitely not as fun as doing a drop
Let's see how good the split is, let's see if the terran target fire the mine correctly etc. Every action is terran.
For Zerg, it's only the fungal left
Used to have muta control magic box, sniping medivac and tanks, or surround etc. All disappeared
You could very well make a perfectly balanced game by giving each race same units and mechanics. But just look at pvp in wol, not fun at all.
Designers need to put more focus on how to make the game fun on both sides (they had the right idea that more action is more entertaining) and less about what is op or not if it's fun to watch and play.
They also need to think about how to introduce diversity for the game. Mech right now is so outshined by bio style, every Zvt is almost ling baneling muta vs bio mine mid game.
|
Canada3132 Posts
On July 06 2013 08:54 ETisME wrote:
Definitely do not only balance the game at top level.
Game needs to be fairly balanced by the amount of skill needed to win a game and equally as fun.
Right now zvt is extremely frustrating to play in since zerg is either all in or stays defensive until one big good engage and counterattack win.
But tvz is extremely fun, you put on non stop aggression and has total tempo control of the game.
Stopping a drop is definitely not as fun as doing a drop
Let's see how good the split is, let's see if the terran target fire the mine correctly etc. Every action is terran.
For Zerg, it's only the fungal left
Used to have muta control magic box, sniping medivac and tanks, or surround etc. All disappeared
You could very well make a perfectly balanced game by giving each race same units and mechanics. But just look at pvp in wol, not fun at all.
Designers need to put more focus on how to make the game fun on both sides (they had the right idea that more action is more entertaining) and less about what is op or not if it's fun to watch and play.
They also need to think about how to introduce diversity for the game. Mech right now is so outshined by bio style, every Zvt is almost ling baneling muta vs bio mine mid game.
Zergs can still split mutas, lings, banes - attack in staggering waves to trigger mines. Surrounds and flanks are still possible, just not blindly. Zergs will need to send in a small wave of flank to trigger mines, then rush in with the rest once the mines are disabled.
I cannot recall the exact game, but I saw a pro Zerg send a couple of roaches and lings. Roaches to soak up Terran fire until lings trigger the mines for minimal cost.
Widow-mines raised the skill-ceiling for Z in ZvT imo.
|
no, no one looked at my suggestions nor commented  Don't worry I just wanted to get attention :'D
|
On July 06 2013 09:16 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 08:54 ETisME wrote:
Definitely do not only balance the game at top level.
Game needs to be fairly balanced by the amount of skill needed to win a game and equally as fun.
Right now zvt is extremely frustrating to play in since zerg is either all in or stays defensive until one big good engage and counterattack win.
But tvz is extremely fun, you put on non stop aggression and has total tempo control of the game.
Stopping a drop is definitely not as fun as doing a drop
Let's see how good the split is, let's see if the terran target fire the mine correctly etc. Every action is terran.
For Zerg, it's only the fungal left
Used to have muta control magic box, sniping medivac and tanks, or surround etc. All disappeared
You could very well make a perfectly balanced game by giving each race same units and mechanics. But just look at pvp in wol, not fun at all.
Designers need to put more focus on how to make the game fun on both sides (they had the right idea that more action is more entertaining) and less about what is op or not if it's fun to watch and play.
They also need to think about how to introduce diversity for the game. Mech right now is so outshined by bio style, every Zvt is almost ling baneling muta vs bio mine mid game. Zergs can still split mutas, lings, banes - attack in staggering waves to trigger mines. Surrounds and flanks are still possible, just not blindly. Zergs will need to send in a small wave of flank to trigger mines, then rush in with the rest once the mines are disabled. I cannot recall the exact game, but I saw a pro Zerg send a couple of roaches and lings. Roaches to soak up Terran fire until lings trigger the mines for minimal cost. Widow-mines raised the skill-ceiling for Z in ZvT imo.
almost every pro zerg split units to take less damage but it isn't exactly the type of micro that is spectacular and not necessarily amazing to watch. It's more of a basic marine stutterstep micro which isn't that amazing to watch anymore other than some scenario like scv marine all in
IF it was more like ling baneling micro in ZvZ, it would be way better and exciting to watch.
Zerg 1 tries to sent a few lings to kill the banelings
Zerg 2 runs back the banelings and use main pack of lings to kill it
Zerg 1 then sent some banelings to chase away that pack of lings
Right now we see some zerg units sent in and terran bio either kill it (if mines are unburrowed) or stop the mines from firing (if they were burrowed). The micro emphasis is still on the terran side.
|
On July 06 2013 09:43 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 09:16 plogamer wrote:On July 06 2013 08:54 ETisME wrote:
Definitely do not only balance the game at top level.
Game needs to be fairly balanced by the amount of skill needed to win a game and equally as fun.
Right now zvt is extremely frustrating to play in since zerg is either all in or stays defensive until one big good engage and counterattack win.
But tvz is extremely fun, you put on non stop aggression and has total tempo control of the game.
Stopping a drop is definitely not as fun as doing a drop
Let's see how good the split is, let's see if the terran target fire the mine correctly etc. Every action is terran.
For Zerg, it's only the fungal left
Used to have muta control magic box, sniping medivac and tanks, or surround etc. All disappeared
You could very well make a perfectly balanced game by giving each race same units and mechanics. But just look at pvp in wol, not fun at all.
Designers need to put more focus on how to make the game fun on both sides (they had the right idea that more action is more entertaining) and less about what is op or not if it's fun to watch and play.
They also need to think about how to introduce diversity for the game. Mech right now is so outshined by bio style, every Zvt is almost ling baneling muta vs bio mine mid game. Zergs can still split mutas, lings, banes - attack in staggering waves to trigger mines. Surrounds and flanks are still possible, just not blindly. Zergs will need to send in a small wave of flank to trigger mines, then rush in with the rest once the mines are disabled. I cannot recall the exact game, but I saw a pro Zerg send a couple of roaches and lings. Roaches to soak up Terran fire until lings trigger the mines for minimal cost. Widow-mines raised the skill-ceiling for Z in ZvT imo. almost every pro zerg split units to take less damage but it isn't exactly the type of micro that is spectacular and not necessarily amazing to watch. It's more of a basic marine stutterstep micro which isn't that amazing to watch anymore other than some scenario like scv marine all in IF it was more like ling baneling micro in ZvZ, it would be way better and exciting to watch. Zerg 1 tries to sent a few lings to kill the banelings Zerg 2 runs back the banelings and use main pack of lings to kill it Zerg 1 then sent some banelings to chase away that pack of lings Right now we see some zerg units sent in and terran bio either kill it (if mines are unburrowed) or stop the mines from firing (if they were burrowed). The micro emphasis is still on the terran side.
i think the reason we see less visible "spectacular micro" at pro level is the deathball/single engagement issue... the game is so fast-paced and armies are usually so congealed that it's almost not worth it to try fancy micro if you get more of a payoff just by focusing on having the better composition, positioning, counterattack timing, etc for when the big engagement goes down
there are things like forcefield placement, but again that only plays a big role because protoss often NEEDS it to keep their deathball alive in that "One Big Engagement"
|
Canada3132 Posts
On July 06 2013 09:43 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 09:16 plogamer wrote:On July 06 2013 08:54 ETisME wrote:
Definitely do not only balance the game at top level.
Game needs to be fairly balanced by the amount of skill needed to win a game and equally as fun.
Right now zvt is extremely frustrating to play in since zerg is either all in or stays defensive until one big good engage and counterattack win.
But tvz is extremely fun, you put on non stop aggression and has total tempo control of the game.
Stopping a drop is definitely not as fun as doing a drop
Let's see how good the split is, let's see if the terran target fire the mine correctly etc. Every action is terran.
For Zerg, it's only the fungal left
Used to have muta control magic box, sniping medivac and tanks, or surround etc. All disappeared
You could very well make a perfectly balanced game by giving each race same units and mechanics. But just look at pvp in wol, not fun at all.
Designers need to put more focus on how to make the game fun on both sides (they had the right idea that more action is more entertaining) and less about what is op or not if it's fun to watch and play.
They also need to think about how to introduce diversity for the game. Mech right now is so outshined by bio style, every Zvt is almost ling baneling muta vs bio mine mid game. Zergs can still split mutas, lings, banes - attack in staggering waves to trigger mines. Surrounds and flanks are still possible, just not blindly. Zergs will need to send in a small wave of flank to trigger mines, then rush in with the rest once the mines are disabled. I cannot recall the exact game, but I saw a pro Zerg send a couple of roaches and lings. Roaches to soak up Terran fire until lings trigger the mines for minimal cost. Widow-mines raised the skill-ceiling for Z in ZvT imo. almost every pro zerg split units to take less damage but it isn't exactly the type of micro that is spectacular and not necessarily amazing to watch. It's more of a basic marine stutterstep micro which isn't that amazing to watch anymore other than some scenario like scv marine all in IF it was more like ling baneling micro in ZvZ, it would be way better and exciting to watch. Zerg 1 tries to sent a few lings to kill the banelings Zerg 2 runs back the banelings and use main pack of lings to kill it Zerg 1 then sent some banelings to chase away that pack of lings Right now we see some zerg units sent in and terran bio either kill it (if mines are unburrowed) or stop the mines from firing (if they were burrowed). The micro emphasis is still on the terran side.
You are too quick to discount Zerg micro, and over-value Terran micro. Especially when you throw in a highly subjective criteria as "spectacular and entertaining to watch". Marine splitting was spectacular because it was an inherently Terran trick to survive the AoE they faced or get utterly annihilated. Lings splits are more difficult imo since they are so fast, but not as entertaining because it didn't really matter in TvZ in WoL. Now with widow mines in HotS, I can differentiate between Zergs with amazing micro in TvZ against Zergs who don't.
A lot of Zerg players were still in WoL mode unfortunately and responded terribly to widow mines. That's why we saw so much QQ over widow mines in the beginning of HotS. And now? Nothing. A lot of viewers are in WoL-mode too. They would cringe if a Terran did not split against banes, but take it as normal when Zergs don't split well enough to mitigate mine shots. No, it should be as great a mistake!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
